Mind Body cultivation

[freeform]

1 hour ago, dmattwads said:

Very interesting as I've been studying and practicing Buddhism for over a decade now and I've never heard of any of this but maybe that's because I studied primarily the Pali Cannon. So that makes me wonder if either it's hidden in the Pali Cannon like some things are supposedly hidden within the Dao De Jing or if it's a later development? 

No, I don’t think it’s hidden in the Pali cannon… 

 

IT’s the sort of thing that’s passed down in person… You can see it a lot in Chan - though there tends to be a big difference between Dharma as a study vs Dharma as cultivation… we rarely get to see the latter.

 

I suspect that originally it comes from a mixing of Buddhist and pre-Buddhist yogic cultivation systems. But who knows…

[Maddie]

9 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

It came up by external observation. Like the universe and the phenomenon within  nature around us.

 

I really don't want to start a new post but I feel like this debate could almost be called cultivation through the intellect or not.

[Shadow_self]

7 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

It came up by external observation. Like the universe and the phenomenon within  nature around us.

 

Where is the Hun and Po in nature? Can you show them to me please?Take a picture and post it  

[Shadow_self]

25 minutes ago, steve said:

 

I think another piece of this puzzle is that our very nature as biological organisms, our physiology and anatomy, creates such a powerful illusion of separateness, of being wholly encased in a bag of skin, of mind-body separation, of consciousness coming out of the brain ... all of that is extremely tricky to see through, particularly as you point out in such a deeply materialistic and deterministic culture and society. Perhaps there are ominous and hidden forces at play to keep the status quo (certainly there are to some degree) but I think it's also somewhat hard-wired into us in this current form. 

 

I agree that we struggle with this hard wired notion. Isn't it the point of cultivation to move beyond that? But recall that this obsession with material nature is a rather new phenomenon. I believe the ancients had a far larger focus on the inner world and spiritual one than we do. Moreover the most revered men of these days made an effort to steer people in that direction to a degree

 

Now from what Ive seen, they know this to be the case. The CIA did in fact stumble upon some material that brought them to certain conclusions. Not all 100% accurate, but some of it was. I see this in academia too, there is an interesting account of how Mario Beauregard was treated, quite shocking stuff

 

Have a listen  his account is rather telling

 

 

[steve]

58 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

The knowledge about the philosophy of WuWei was acquired externally from the Tao Te Jing. It couldn't be obtained internally. WuWei was Laotze's original philosophy. No one can out smart Laotze.

 

We’ll simply have to agree to disagree.

IMO if you only look outside you’re missing at least have the picture.

[Cobie]

23 hours ago, Wilhelm said:

… Part of Bodhidharma's thing was teaching … how to correctly use their body to deepen their meditative practice. …

“how to correctly use their body” …  “Bodhidharma … cut off his eyelids because he felt sleepy during meditation.” (Google) 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Cobie

[Maddie]

30 minutes ago, freeform said:

No, I don’t think it’s hidden in the Pali cannon… 

 

IT’s the sort of thing that’s passed down in person… You can see it a lot in Chan - though there tends to be a big difference between Dharma as a study vs Dharma as cultivation… we rarely get to see the latter.

 

I suspect that originally it comes from a mixing of Buddhist and pre-Buddhist yogic cultivation systems. But who knows…

 

Sometimes this makes me wonder why in the Pali cannon it seems like people became enlightened frequently and yet these days that doesn't seem to happen very often at all. It makes me wonder what was being taught that didn't get passed down?

[ChiDragon]

13 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

It makes me wonder what was being taught that didn't get passed down?

This happens most often in many cases! No matter what they are!

Edited January 22, 2023 by ChiDragon

[wandelaar]

It's logically impossible to only look outside and still see something meaningful. There has to be an inborn interpretative scheme to make sense of the incoming sense-data. One cannot start from zero. As one grows up the interpretative scheme can gradually be modified to accommodate new experiences. Furthermore the TTC clearly bears the marks of the historical times in which it was written. Some parts are simply obsolete now.

[liminal_luke]

Not all materialists are cut from the same material.  One can believe that there is no consciousness apart from matter but what is matter?  Some say matter is a physical substance we can see and touch; others, in line with recent theories in the field of physics, posit that matter is the ultimate mystery -- largely empty, both here and there, ultimately unknowable, riddled with paradox.  

 

I believe that all practice cultivates both mind and body because everything is body or, take your pick, everything is mind.  The chocolate is hopelessly mixed up with the peanut butter and ain't nobody pulling them apart now.

Edited January 22, 2023 by liminal_luke

[wandelaar]

It's not necessary to believe in the independence of the mind from the brain (for which there is hardly any proof anyhow) to appreciate the value of a spiritual way of life. Only look at the original Epicureans who were hard-core materialists but who's doctrine largely agreed with Lao tzu on living a simple life. Not believing in an afterlife makes this life here on earth all the more precious and not to be wasted.

 

And indeed matter according to the current theories of physics is just as mysterious as the spiritual realm, so even if matter were the ultimate stuff of the world than nothing of the wonder of existence would be lost.

[ChiDragon]

15 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

It's logically impossible to only look outside and still see something meaningful. There has to be an inborn interpretative scheme to make sense of the incoming sense-data. One cannot start from zero. As one grows up the interpretative scheme can gradually be modified to accommodate new experiences. Furthermore the TTC clearly bears the marks of the historical times in which it was written. Some parts are simply obsolete now.

My logic tells me that we have to start from zero. It is because we knew nothing when we were first born. The inborn interpretative scheme to make sense of the incoming sense-data has to come from something that we had learned from zero. Otherwise, we have nothing to compare to the incoming sense-data.

[wandelaar]

2 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

My logic tells me that we have to start from zero. It is because we knew nothing when we were first born. The inborn interpretative scheme to make sense of the incoming sense-data has to come from something that we had learned from zero. Otherwise, we have nothing to compare to the incoming sense-data.

 

One cannot interpret without an interpretative scheme, however primitive. Sense data on itself are meaningless. If we really knew nothing when we were first born than we wouldn't know how to eat or drink or what to do to get it. Even animals have a very basic understanding of the world when they are first born as shown in their behavior.

[ChiDragon]

10 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

t's not necessary to believe in the independence of the mind from the brain (for which there is hardly any proof anyhow) to appreciate the value of a spiritual way of life.

So, this raises a question. Is the brain doing all the thinking or the mind is doing all the thinking? Can you said that you have a strong  brain but a weak mind. Am I separating the brain and the mind here? In order to have a strong intelligent mind, the mind has to be cultivated. No? To cultivate the mind is to acquire knowledge from external source. No?

To appreciate the value of a spiritual way of life, one has to go through the learning of spiritual way of life. Otherwise, how would you know what the spiritual way of life is?

[ChiDragon]

18 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

One cannot interpret without an interpretative scheme, however primitive. Sense data on itself are meaningless. If we really knew nothing when we were first born than we wouldn't know how to eat or drink or what to do to get it. Even animals have a very basic understanding of the world when they are first born as shown in their behavior.

Yes, that is true that one cannot interpret without an interpretative scheme. However, the interpretative scheme has to be experienced and learned from the past, but not from zero. Thus the mind has to be trained or by cultivation to store the leaning experience in the brain. Then it was used as an interpretative scheme to be compared with the sense-data.

A new born baby wouldn't know how to eat or drink or what to do to get it. Just by natural instinct, the infant knows how to suck something through the mouth. As an infant grows up, needs to learn how to walk then run. Animals are different from human, their natural instinct is much less complicated than human. They almost can walk few hours after they were born and find milk from their mother. As opposed to an infant, something has to be place in the mouth in order to perform the sucking instinct.

[freeform]

15 hours ago, dmattwads said:

 

Sometimes this makes me wonder why in the Pali cannon it seems like people became enlightened frequently and yet these days that doesn't seem to happen very often at all. It makes me wonder what was being taught that didn't get passed down?

An explanation for this from people I respect:

 

There are several factors as to why you hear of people getting enlightened so seemingly easily in the old texts…

 

This wasn’t an internet connected age… there weren’t planes, trains and automobiles…

 

This means that the people who sought out the Buddha would either have been exceptionally dedicated practitioners (to undertake the arduous journey they would’ve had to take to get there and to have even heard of him)… They would also have had exceptional karma to have been blessed with having the insight to seek him out - as well as having the means to access to such a high level master.

 

So the people that came into contact with the Buddha were mostly already the cream of the crop… but they also were in the presence of this incredibly attained being who radiated a transmission of the highest attainment at all times.

 

So with that combination of factors, it’s no wonder why so many became arahants so quickly in his presence.

 

Who knows if that’s true… but seems reasonable to me.

Edited January 23, 2023 by freeform

[wandelaar]

26 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

So, this raises a question. Is the brain doing all the thinking or the mind is doing all the thinking? Can you said that you have a strong  brain but a weak mind. Am I separating the brain and the mind here? 

 

It might be so that thinking is done on the brain, in a similar way that software can run on the hardware of a computer. It's senseless to ask if its really the hardware or the software that's doing the processing, because it's the combination of both that makes it happen.

 

26 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

In order to have a strong intelligent mind, the mind has to be cultivated. No? To cultivate the mind is to acquire knowledge from external source. No?

 

Yes partly so - but that doesn't prove your point. Besides formal types of knowledge like mathematics can also be developed internally without external input.

 

26 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

To appreciate the value of a spiritual way of life, one has to go through the learning of spiritual way of life. Otherwise, how would you know what the spiritual way of life is?

 

What exactly are you trying to prove here?

[Bindi]

What are subtle energy channels, they’re not physical matter, not body, but they’re also not mind. More likely perhaps to be explained by quantum physics which seems to accept that odd things go on. 
 

Can mind be informed by subtle energies? If yes, then mind becomes much more than brain based,  but minds basic mode might be brain based.  

[ChiDragon]

Quote

To appreciate the value of a spiritual way of life, one has to go through the learning of spiritual way of life. Otherwise, how would you know what the spiritual way of life is?

 

"What exactly are you trying to prove here?"
I am simply asking, from zero, do you know what is "the spiritual way of life" to begin with.

[iinatti]

On 1/21/2023 at 6:30 PM, dmattwads said:

My question is aside from systems like Qigong and Yoga asana being healthy for the body, can they be used to cultivate the mind and if so, how so?

 

Purpose of moving meditation is still meditation in my book, otherwise may be better off going to the gym.

 

The "mind" is a tricky word.  Most English speaking people would attribute it classical Aristotelian philosophy--i.e. mind/body.  Some might think its just your brain.  Maybe its consciousness generally.  My view is that neither buddhist nor daoist philosophy is meant to cultivate the Aristotle mind, but something more broad and pervasive, which includes the health of the physical body.

 

If I am holding a coffee cup, is it my mind that is conscious of the teetering cup, or my hand.  I dont think there is a distinction.   

 

My thinking is that many equate the mind to being isolated in the head, and separate from the body, simply because many of our sensory facilities occur there.  Our eyes, ears, mouth and nose.  Even ones internal dialogue can be viewed as abstraction of the voice, which also occurs at the back of the throat in the head. If I abstract an image of a tree, it occurs in my head, because that is where my eyes are.  Other forms of conscious  occur elsewhere.  I am conscious of being hungry, though I would not say the sensation of hunger occurs in the head. I can make an imagine a pain in my foot, but that abstraction occurs in the foot, not the head.  Fundamentally, however, my insight from this question is that one's abstraction of the mind/body, and the complex map that we make of it, with all of the different points and channels, is still an abstraction,  which must be transcended if one is to reach something real.   Thus, the "mind" that is being cultivated through any practice means something quite different to me, though I am still learning what that is.    

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by Magister Ludi
new insight

[Lairg]

30 minutes ago, Bindi said:

What are subtle energy channels, they’re not physical matter, not body, but they’re also not mind. More likely perhaps to be explained by quantum physics which seems to accept that odd things go on. 
 

Can mind be informed by subtle energies? If yes, then mind becomes much more than brain based,  but minds basic mode might be brain based.  

 

Solids, liquids, gases, 4 aetheric subplanes then the 5 Hindu electricities - thus making up the physical plane and what stands under it.

 

My observation of the aetheric brain is that there is an interface layer that allows the mind to connect to the brain.

 

Among other causes, repeated blows to the head may knock loose the interface layer so that the mind has only limited connection to the brain.

 

The interface layer looks like a yellow honeycomb structure

 

Dementia  "late 16th century: from Latin, from demens, dement- ‘out of one's mind’.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Lairg

[ChiDragon]

21 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

It might be so that thinking is done on the brain, in a similar way that software can run on the hardware of a computer. It's senseless to ask if its really the hardware or the software that's doing the processing, because it's the combination of both that makes it happen.

 

"Combination" is the keyword here. The term implies two things, brain/mind, hardware/software.  As long there are two things, we can talk about them each individually. 

There is still a distinction between the hardware and software. The hardware may be the same, but the software can be changed. That is why we have software updates. In the other hand, The brain is just an instrument. Thus the brain doesn't change, but the mind can be changed anytime. If I want to distinguish the two, individually, it is actually the software is doing all the work. If the software was changed, it can perform another function. May I say that the software is really doing all the work other than the hardware?

Of course, if you insist, you can say the combination of both is doing all the work. However, I have given my reason to prove my point.

[markern]

7 hours ago, freeform said:

Literally beating open the channels. Blocking, breath holding, pressurising… hitting the mat with the legs to descend the qi… jumping down onto the hui yin point with great force to raise the qi…

 

Super directed, contrived practice. 
 

Sp do you think this is a wrong approach to practice? That they should learn more from the Taoist approach?

[Shadow_self]

21 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

"Combination" is the keyword here. The term implies two things, brain/mind, hardware/software.  As long there are two things, we can talk about them each individually. 

There is still a distinction between the hardware and software. The hardware may be the same, but the software can be changed. That is why we have software updates. In the other hand, The brain is just an instrument. Thus the brain doesn't change, but the mind can be changed anytime. If I want to distinguish the two, individually, it is actually the software is doing all the work. If the software was changed, it can perform another function. May I say that the software is really doing all the work other than the hardware?

Of course, if you insist, you can say the combination of both is doing all the work. However, I have given my reason to prove my point.

 

Sadly, you haven't proven anything at all, except for the fact that you are rather confused

 

The DIY psychology is  rather uncalled for. If you want to talk facts, talk facts. Theres an abundance of evidence here

 

If you change the structure of the brain the mind will be affected to a degree. If they were separate, this would not happen

 

If you change the mind, the brain can be affected also (its called neuroplasticity) and and the changes occur at the structural, functional and hormonal level. If they were separate things , this would not happen

 

So you can change the brain via the mind and the mind via the brain. the latter is actually the more complex (though it sounds simpler) 

 

We don't even need to move past the very limited juvenile materialistic framework to deduce these things, they are clearly observable and have been repeatedly

[wandelaar]

32 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

Of course, if you insist, you can say the combination of both is doing all the work. However, I have given my reason to prove my point.

 

No - you haven't proven your point. The software on it's own can't do anything and you know it. In the same way feeding sense date to an empty brain (whether human or animal) wil have no effect at all. Both animals and humans start with a basic interpretative scheme at birth to effectively deal with the incoming sense data. Calling this interpretative scheme instinct only changes the words used but not the facts. Furthermore the brain does change as a result of cognition, experiences, etc. So you are wrong on multiple counts but unwilling to see it. Enough - goodbye.